Talk:Kingston upon Hull/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Gary King (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I would've passed this so quickly. I think most of the data itself is good, but the placement of images and the organization still needs a lot of work.
- Unnecessary bold text in the bullet points under 'governance' should be removed per WP:MOS.
Done
- The climate chart overlaps into the demographics section over on the right. I'd recommend using {{Average and record temperatures}} instead, which won't do that.
- Moved chart to top of section as per Manchester article.
- Replaced previous chart with table and added image--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Moved chart to top of section as per Manchester article.
- 'Demographics is very short, and looks very awkward with a little intro, followed by a table, and then two footnotes for the table below. I question whether the demographics section can be really called "complete" at this point. One thing that would help would be to move the 'religion' section into 'demographics' -- it really shouldn't be it's own main section anyway.
- Add some employment detail and added Religion section to end without header.
- Demote 'transportation and infrastructure'; it should be one of the last sections in the article. Infrastructure related things aren't nearly as important as things like culture and economy.
- Moved to later in article above Public services.
- 'Economy' has a very short sentence on the port, and then another sentence on some businesses based in the city, comprising the first, very short paragraph. Then, there's a rather large paragraph on shopping centers, which are not nearly as notable and don't contribute nearly as much to the economy as businesses based here. Unless, of course, the town derives much of its economy from tourism, but I don't see that mentioned here. I'm not getting anything of value out of the table of regional trends; there's insufficient text introducing the table, and the table really doesn't offer much to the article. In short, the economy section needs major expansion and is does not meet the "completeness" criterion at WP:WIAGA.
- Pulled table and slight expansion on port & businesses
- The 'regeneration' section should be moved to history, since it's historical in nature. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to put this section several sections separated from history.
- Moved to end of History section
- 'Public services' is really connected to 'infrastructure', and should be included with that section.
- Remove header and leave under Transport and infrastructure headings.
- Many of the subsections under 'culture' are very short, and could be expanded. Although this is not so much of a GA-related issue, moving forward I think it would be wise to not have individual subsections for 'literature', 'theatre', 'classical music', etc, and instead try to focus on weaving the various elements of culture into one coherent, well-written main section on culture.
- Noted for later work
- Removed section headings copyedited for better flow resized and moved images--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Noted for later work
- The section on 'Reputation' is not normally included as a main section in city articles, and its inclusion has serious WP:NPOV issues. It's citing a lot of matters of opinion, and while things like the media citations of, "the worst place to live in Britain" and "The Best and Worst Places to Live in Britain", putting it in a main section like this is putting far too much weight on it. While these two sources technically meet WP:RS, I don't think this much weight should be put into a top 10 list which is essentially an advertisement in disguise as journalism. But also, in the next paragraph, the sentence, "In spite of these issues, many of the city's residents are very proud of Hull, its history, and its traditions, using such terms as "underrated", "thriving", "fantastic", and "wonderful" to describe their home." is cited by a real estate blog, which is not a reliable source. This whole section needs to be removed; some material can be moved to other parts of the article, but as it stands, it does not meet WP:NPOV.
- Section pulled
At the present time, the article does not meet the GA criteria, and I am delisting it at sending it back to WP:GAN under on hold status. Once the issues are addressed, it can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This review is meant to verify if changes have been made to the article to achieve GA status. 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Prose is awkward in places. Run-on sentences with unbalanced appositives are the norm and make the article difficult to read. Use of passive voice is frequent and unnecessary. For example, "Archaeological surveys, conducted between 1994 and 2001, in the wetland environment of the Hull valley have discovered that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period" is probably best rewritten as "Archaeological surveys of the Hull valley conducted in the late 1990s show evidence that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period." For example, "Originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton, the site was chosen in the late 12th century by the monks of Meaux Abbey to develop as a new town named Wyke upon Hull. The River Hull provided a good haven for shipping whose main trade was in the export of wool from the abbey and other local landlords. The town was acquired from the abbey by King Edward I in 1293, who granted a royal charter, dated April 1, 1299, that renamed the settlement King's town upon Hull, or Kingston upon Hull" can be written as, "In the 12th century, the area that later became Kingston upon Hull was originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton. Monks from nearby Meaux Abbey developed the area into a new town named Wyke upon Hull, which King Edward I acquired in 1293. A royal charter was granted on 1 April, 1299 that renamed the settlement "King's town upon Hull", or alternatively, Kingston upon Hull." Done Further, areas need to be condensed. In general, sections are too long/wordy and sentences can be combined/separated to provide better flow to the article. Information is also repeated unnecessarily in sections.
- Prose is awkward in places. Run-on sentences with unbalanced appositives are the norm and make the article difficult to read. Use of passive voice is frequent and unnecessary. For example, "Archaeological surveys, conducted between 1994 and 2001, in the wetland environment of the Hull valley have discovered that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period" is probably best rewritten as "Archaeological surveys of the Hull valley conducted in the late 1990s show evidence that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period." For example, "Originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton, the site was chosen in the late 12th century by the monks of Meaux Abbey to develop as a new town named Wyke upon Hull. The River Hull provided a good haven for shipping whose main trade was in the export of wool from the abbey and other local landlords. The town was acquired from the abbey by King Edward I in 1293, who granted a royal charter, dated April 1, 1299, that renamed the settlement King's town upon Hull, or Kingston upon Hull" can be written as, "In the 12th century, the area that later became Kingston upon Hull was originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton. Monks from nearby Meaux Abbey developed the area into a new town named Wyke upon Hull, which King Edward I acquired in 1293. A royal charter was granted on 1 April, 1299 that renamed the settlement "King's town upon Hull", or alternatively, Kingston upon Hull."
- B. MoS compliance:
- All abbreviations need to be written out (and preferably linked) the first time so that those not familiar with the term can understand what it means. Minor point: As a general rule, in formal writing like this, use the term "United States" or "US" instead of "America". Done
- All abbreviations need to be written out (and preferably linked) the first time so that those not familiar with the term can understand what it means. Minor point: As a general rule, in formal writing like this, use the term "United States" or "US" instead of "America".
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Need references: History section, paragraph ending "Princes Quay shopping centre"; Governance section, paragraphs ending "Independent member for Yorkshire" Done and "Hull was made a unitary authority area"; Demography section, sentence ending "particularly in the transepts" Done(note: why is this info even in Demographics? DoneIt should be part of the history/culture/geography sections); Transport section, sentences ending "travel inland as far as Goole", Done "to many European destinations" Doneand paragraph ending "are operated by EYMS." Done; and Dialect section, sentences ending "variation across areas and generations" Done and "had received a phone call". Done cut sentence
- Need references: History section, paragraph ending "Princes Quay shopping centre"; Governance section, paragraphs ending "Independent member for Yorkshire"
- C. No original research:
- As some pieces are not cited, unable to determine if there is OR. Likely OR in dialect and transport sections.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Like said above in prose section, go through the article and try to determine what is necessary to keep in the article. What points are actually interesting to general readers of the article and which piece of information are simply trivial?
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Photo captions should generally not end in a period. For example, "One Humber Quays, home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber." should not end in a period because it is not a sentence (there is no verb). So either remove the periods on those captions or insert a verb so it says "One Humber Quays is home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber." Done
- Photo captions should generally not end in a period. For example, "One Humber Quays, home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber." should not end in a period because it is not a sentence (there is no verb). So either remove the periods on those captions or insert a verb so it says "One Humber Quays is home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber."
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Still cannot recommend GA status, mostly due to problems with prose and organization. Topics are introduced in unusual sections. For example, all the information under the panorama about recent developments, which by its very definition, is not history. The information is also repeated in the economy section, even though that is where it is probably best displayed. Further, there are too many unjustified subsections. Not every new topic needs its own subsection, separate paragraphs do just fine. As the article has already exceeded the week-long revision deadline, article will fail GA status for now but please renominate when revisions are complete. Good luck! Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
